Monday, November 19, 2007

Don't flame me, bro'

Recently there has been a sharp increase in the amount of abusive language on the New Scientist website. No, it's not because our writers have become degenerates, it's because we rolled out a new commenting facility on all articles, giving people the chance to share their thoughts and opinions across the site.

I am particularly conscious of this trend because, as the moderator, I keep an eye on all comments and have to remove any that break our House Rules. This means I read a lot of comments (826 last week) and while most of them are perfectly polite, there's a stubborn minority that are rude, intentionally provocative, or just plain abusive. It seems people will say things online that they would never say face-to-face.

My pet theory about why people behave so rudely is that online commenting is treated, by most people, like a pub conversation – they don't necessarily expect to be taken seriously and the social rules are fairly relaxed. And yet, because comments appear in cold text without important cues like friendly body language, they can easily seem more offensive than if they would otherwise. As a result some people get annoyed, and the flaming and trolling begin.

After being described a few weeks ago as "a self-lobotomised liberal who can't face the facts", I decided to look into the psychology of online behaviour a bit further. Much of the research on online communication has looked at email, but it seems that many of the results can be generalised to apply to chat rooms and forums too.

Social psychologists have known for decades that, if we reduce our sense of our own identity – a process called deindividuation – we are less likely to stick to social norms. For example, in the 1960s Leon Mann studied a nasty phenomenon called "suicide baiting" – when someone threatening to jump from a high building is encouraged to do so by bystanders. Mann found that people were more likely to do this if they were part of a large crowd, if the jumper was above the 7th floor, and if it was dark. These are all factors that allowed the observers to lose their own individuality.

Social psychologist Nicholas Epley argues that much the same thing happens with online communication such as email. Psychologically, we are "distant" from the person we're talking to and less focused on our own identity. As a result we're more prone to aggressive behaviour, he says.

Another factor influencing online communication, according to Epley, is simply the risk of miscommunication involved with text-based messages, which are inherently more ambiguous. At the same time, he notes, email "has the feel of informality – we just fire something off", even though we probably ought to treat it with the same care as a written letter. And, as most people probably know, this can cause problems for both the sender and the receiver.

Epley explains further: "If I send a joke in an email, it'll be ambiguous when it gets to you. That's hard for me to detect: the joke is funny, and I use that knowledge to judge how you'll interpret it." But the receiver may not realise that the email is meant as a joke – particularly if they are in a bad mood to start with – and that can lead to horrified responses like "I can't believe you just said that" and to an unnecessary argument.

In 2005, Epley showed that people can vastly overestimate their ability to communicate unambiguously by email. He suggests that we find it hard to take another person's perspective when communicating electronically. Similarly, a forthcoming study by Kristin Byron found that people tend to interpret emails more negatively than other forms of communication (Academy of Management Review, volume 33, issue 2), making them even more likely to respond aggressively.

Another obvious factor is that, if you insult someone online, it's unlikely you'll face any physical retaliation for it. Epley compares the resulting psychological distance to being isolated inside a car – another situation that seems to make people more prone to abusiveness.

I'm not sure what we can do to minimise miscommunication and abuse online. But being aware that we're not as good at communication online as we'd like to think seems like a good start. I know I often have to restrain myself from joining in.

Michael Marshall needs to take his neo-nazi propaganda elsewhere. He wreaks of ignorance on this topic. Hatred and violence toward sub-humans such as Michael Marshall are the only solution to spreading this false doctrine!

just kidding.

The topic on suicide baiting was more interesting.. newscientist should expand on this.

I've posted one or two harsh comments in situations where the headline and discussion in the article was so dominated by sensationalist speculation, and so lacking a picture of the on-the-ground scientific reality, that I felt that the article just needed to be denounced.

Actually, this problem affects many NewsSientist writings, some more some less, and in the end it leaves the public with an unscientific understanding of the scientific situation. I think this is a disservice.

The fact that a website with objectively reported scientific articles is getting rude comments or being "flamed" with greater frequency may be part of a wider trend. At least in the U.S. I see a gradual but inexorable cultural movement towards a fundamentalist religious preoccupation. The fundamentalist Christian perspectrive on science is often not favorable. Such a movement is not without prescedent in the U.S. throughout its history. I think it is a shame since the movement to a predominantly more secular religious stance favorable to scientific development is part of what made the U.S. a dominant superpower over the past century or more. I can't say for sure if this applies to other nations.

It's not just religious; many people are "not religious" but lacking the scientific training necessary in particular to realise that a scientific study and personal opinion are very different things, leading to dogmatic assertions without substantiation being thrown at scientists. Please don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that science is immune to this itself. But the amount of times I've heard someone say "that's just some scientist's opinion, I've just as much right to mine"... I think a lot of it is to do with a failure to realise that one can have ones own opinions but not ones own facts (I forget who said that). Also I think any move towards fundamentalism has a lot to do with a need for security and so that's going to lead to trolling and flames when someone has the temerity to say something that others see as being in conflict with their world view.

Also see Penny Arcade's strip on the "Greater Internet F***wad Theory" (apologies for the name). That seems to sum it up pretty well!

Anonymity is what makes the web both wonderful and dangerous at the same time.

Anonymity allows freedom of speech to those who's human rights are normally controlled.

On another level we are also control by the rules of socially acceptable behaviour which unfortunately is also escaped by anonymity. Social systems have evolved to allow us to 'all get along' by damping emotional or irrational behaviour, there are unwritten rules that when acting anonymously one is left to adhere to at one's own discretion.

Social acceptance should not be treated as oppression to escaped, but instead as courtesy.

It is interesting how hatred breeds hatred. It seems to create a feedback loop that takes a long time to die off.

One thing that can help - a lot - is use of contextual clues such as emoticons etc to help fill in the tone that's missing in textual conversation. Consider "hey :)" versus "hey >:(" and the immediate difference in meaning one can generally take away from the two examples. More context = less misunderstanding.

In a FTF conversation, there is a lot of rapid give-and-take. Even if I am disagreeing with someone, there is a sense that we have to agree to communicate in some sort of alternation. No one really gets the last word.

Online, it's too easy to think "Aha, I can shoot *that* idiot's argument down with a comprehensive proof of his fallacies. And thus I will have the last word".

Except I don't, because the presumed idiot can and will often respond in exactly the same mind set.

The more this goes on, the more it inflames (pun intended) the subject's behaviour elsewhere. Even in a different context, they may be carrying the same "chip" and immediately inject that energy into a new conversation.

Often times what happens is that the site eBaumsworld finds out about a random site and they'll start trolling and starting unnecessary flame wars just to annoy the site admins. They really are just total jerks over there.

I think the increased abusiveness, in the nature of the comments, you are receiving, is just a result of the internet becoming less elitist. Access to the internet is becoming much more affordable so that ordinary people, like me, can surf the internet for the first time. You leave your comments section open to all comers, so what are you expecting!

Perhaps, the pub is one of the few places where you actually get to meet people of different social backgrounds. Surely you must realise that many, many people, maybe the majority, do swear and act aggressively to each other on a regular basis, at work and at home, this isn’t even anything new. Obviously, in your world, hierarchies are justly defined and strictly enforced but this is not the case for everyone. Unfortunately, few people are given that security and respect in their everyday lives. And, I would say you actually receive less abusiveness from people because of the lack of feedback, in the form of social cues, you get from posting a comment in writing. Where is the reward in acting aggressively when the recipient of the aggression does not flinch or cower straight after you raise your voice and start criticising them aggressively? Where is the reward in intimidating someone when you are almost completely anonymous, accept for an IP address?

It's not the fact that we (the people) are flaming you, it's the fact that you need to write better blogs. There is no doubt that the reason we flame you is that either we don't like the fact you are posting these random ass blogs or it could be that we don't like you.

on comment #3, "I think it is a shame since the movement to a predominantly more secular religious stance favorable to scientific development is part of what made the U.S. a dominant superpower over the past century or more."

Actually, I think it was more our ability to exploit other nations and push them further into the third world as we became more first world. But scientists are always known for knowing nothing about the greater political and sociological issues in the world around them.

Maybe, I am being very naive here. But, is this Michael Marshall dropping a subtle hint to his employers to end the open door policy on comments because reading comments is taking up too much of his valuable time?

People are just getting used to the ever increasing informality of posting and emailing and commenting. Smileys are very important but I think it's more important that people take a more laid back attitude towards posts. As said, there is no fear of a physical response to hold the flamers back. But the same goes for the people offended. Why would you let a complete stranger offend you, when you could also read the message as a joke or sarcasm. It's just a switch you should pull when reading anything on the internet really.

I think you miss the point. Flaming and trolling and etc. are rhetorical tools, just as sarcasm, condescencion, irony, humor and smiley faces are tools to be used in a forum.

Whining about the other guy's choice of tools is yet another open forum tool: pity and self-pity. It is an attempt to build consensus and rally the troops to battle. Increase the noise and the signal is lost, which is the point.

What we really need is for schools to teach rhetoric so that we can elevate the quality of the tool selection.

(1) 'Also see Penny Arcade's strip on the "Greater Internet F***wad Theory" (apologies for the name). That seems to sum it up pretty well!'-- The name of the theory alone constitutes a huge leap in our understanding of the roughly half of all people who disagree with me politically. Now THAT is a great theory!

(2) "in the end it leaves the public with an unscientific understanding of the scientific situation. I think this is a disservice. Is there any possibility of turning this around?"-- Based on the quality of thought I see demonstrated (including humorous comments) I'd say the readers here are not your average Fox News believers. New Scientist readers seem able to think critically. What are you worried about? If they're reporting on people who disagree with you, that's easy. (See my item #1.)

It is fun to say something outrageous that is bound to make people flip their wigs, and have a laugh. That is why we troll. If someone gets mad and goes off, you have been trolled, you have lost. Have a nice day!

I think this is a fascinating social phenomenon, akin to crowd/mob mentality and a variant of mass hysteria.

It's interesting to note the difference in behaviour between purely anonymous commenting systems, and feedback-oriented systems as on eBay or Slashdot. Both the existence and the nature of the feedback is seemingly significant.

A related (I think) phenomenon is griefers on internet forums. This seems less to do with strict anonymity, and more to do with a form of internet elitism. In fact, in my experience the emergence of griefers tends to happen more in quasi-anonymous forums and not in completely anonymous forums, which seem to be the domain of trolls and flamers.

I'm surprised the author of this post was unfamiliar with the extensive academic literature on flaming.

Turnage (2007) for instance attempts to construct a testing scale on which to analyse what a "flame" might be.

Beyond the limited scope of the reference material the narrow field of view is also unfortunate. Literature on communication meaning and the impact of non-verbal behaviour is not just the province of psychology, linguistics anthropology and even sociology have fruitful programs of study that have implications for this form of study. How people react to flaming is something that people in the field of pragmatics, and discourse analysis have effectively probe, without any of the positivism normally associated with approaches such as Mann's.

I do certainly appreciate the interesting phenomenon under study here, I just hope to highlight how many areas of study are in fact compatible to this form of analysis.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.just add LOBBYING in the list of reasonsfor the growth of insults on forums andblogs, that's my personal experience (aswriter of, often "disliked", arguments onmy blog ghostNASA.com and my websitegaetanomarano.it) talking about Spaceon several Space forums and blogs... :(.just TRY to write articles or posts withCRITICS about Space companies and/orspace agencies' choices... then, you will(IMMEDIATELY) receive LOTS of insultsfrom users that (hidden by their strangenicknames) run that kind of forums andblogs ONLY to support the business andthe policies of the companies they workfor, and write against ALL the blog/forumusers that have different opinions (afterall, the money involved in that business,is in the range of SEVERAL Billion$$$...) .if the insults are not enough to stop youother serious censorships could happenlike was last september with ghostNASAafter posting "too much" protests aboutthe "bad events" explained in this article:http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/008moonprize.html>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It's kinda funny that people like George Carlin make a fortune bitching about how f'ing stupid people are, yet you cry about people writing angry emails or posts. I for one greatly appreciate peoples expression of anger and rage in emails and blogs. American society is becoming WAY WAY WAYYYYYY too polite and pussified. America is the land of the politically correct and sissified. Ohhh, don't say anything that offends women, gays, minorities, etc or you'll have the likes of media hounds and mega hypocrits Jesse Jackson and that other moron. This society f'ing sucks, and it's politeness that is ruining it.

This is why people should use more emoticons. Sure its only a little icon, but you can show your personal state to other people so they will recognize your feelings at the moment you write something.I use it even in business emails...

"Based on the quality of thought I see demonstrated (including humorous comments) I'd say the readers here are not your average Fox News believers. New Scientist readers seem able to think critically."

The trolling of smug people who have still potential for mental developement seems to be a bigger problem than flaming.

RE: Comment #3. A clarification. It is amusing in retrospect that in a way my comment was somewhat inflammatory. Perhaps I was in a bad mood or under influenced tacitly by the title of the article. The was simply offering sympathy to the blogger while tying in a lament about what I see as an eroding of respect from the lay public and funding from the U.S. gov't with regard to the sciences and those who practice them over the last 40 years or so. While at the same time the fundamentalist Christain movements are gaining in popularity in the mainstream along with doctrines such as Intelligent Design and Creationism. Fundamentalist Christian views are at root of the fundation of the U.S., an example beign the Puritans. Fortunately the founders of the constitution wisely sought to separate religious from secular matters with regards to state affairs and education. Now it is not only a matter of opinions versus facts but religious beliefs versus facts. These trends to not bode well for the future of the U.S. as a continuing technological leader when nations such as the E.U., India, and China are rapidly progressing in the basic sciennces and arguably ahead of the U.S. now in some areas. With regards to how the U.S. became a superpower I was referring to how it established military supremacy ie WW2.I agree that anonymity is a double edged sword. You will get more honest opinions and varied opinions, but a breakdown in organization from the intended subject, which can result in chaos and disorganization. To maintain sanity, the blogger may have to impose and enforce rules.

I've always enjoyed a good spot of trollery now and again. Conversely, I also enjoy the occasional bit of counter-trollery as well. If I happen upon some sanctimonious piffle dishing out the old rubbish, I give'em what-for with a cherry on top. But if a fella's being hysterical, I turn all super-reasonable to make sure he appreciates that he's an incoherent, overemotional effeminatus who needs a straitjacket. Tehehe

as a troll can i first point out you sir are a noob. The great thing about the internet is it's all lies and propaganda, even new scientist prints nonsense pseudoscience to propagate it's liberal doctrine. The reason people troll and flame is because freed from the social constraints of normalized life we can express our true feeling, which means we can cut through the bland 'don't mention the war' socialcontrol imposed on us and reach the truth quicker.

Ok well not quite the truth but a fuller 'grocking' of the situation. I take it you know how to use wikipedia properly? first you read the article then head over to the talk page to find what the wikinazis have deemed not worthy of the finished article - this quickly fills you in on the conventional wisdom of the event and gives you some idea of the issues surrounding it.

The Guardians talk pages are especially good example of this -see the comments of any story about the middle east and you'll find the bare bones of the issues laid bare as everyone with an vague knowledge or interest in the events battles to the death. Mrs so and so from Israel argues with Mr whoever from New York and a few dozen random view points skirmish round the edges, in this we can learn what people think of each other, how the see the issues, what angle do they come from, etc, etc.

To you Trolling might be the decline of civilization but boring stuck in the past establishment types think that about everything good which has ever happened. Either get with the program and reevaluate your understanding of communication or GTFO my internets kthx lol.

this is copypasta from ebaums world - this is their INTERNET TERRORIST TRAINING MANUAL- this isn't a real news board at all but a trolling station, its where we practice trolling -sharpen our claws before in mock battles before heading out the the epic battlefields of youtube comments!

most of the exstream views you hear are infact someone (often me) trolling, the game is say the most absurd and insane thing then defend your point using logical fallacy, retarded argumentation and made up statistics. For major points you can make up an entire news article (or edit an existing one) and post it, lulz ensure! (oh and don't worry no one ever checks the validity of sources it's sort of a gentleman's agreement we have)

so welcome to EBAUMS WORLD, strap on those dueling pistols and get ready to fight.

[the conclusion of this comment has been edited to remove some obscene language. Yes, we realise it was meant as a joke, but rules are rules]

This is the internet. The last bastion of democracy. Like all things, you take the good with the bad and it's worth it. If you haven't already, I suggest you deal with it.

Because only on the internet can skinny nerds, hellbound athiests, and Anti-Chinese Communist Party citizens can voice their opinions without retaliation. If it contains a lot of profanity, then so be it. The profanity is justified.

To finish this comment, allow me to offer you a protip that may enlighten you on why some people choose to abuse and troll others online: Because it's funny.

Internet: You're an idiot if you take everything seriously.

You're a New Scientist staff for god- I mean, science's sake. You should know better.

listen paul put your dictionary forcibly up your anus and GTFO - if you can understand a post thats good enough, this aint no high minded bookclub or national news paper its the interwebs and i dont have time to check my spelling or any of that nonsence its really not that important if it hurts your brain to communicate in a more freeform way then screw you mister because grammer is dead baby - VIVA LA INTERNETS lol

I think you are completely correct. After playing games online for about 10 years any comment can be preceived as offensive. Even in cases where the comment is to just be funny the audience is so broad in an open forum that it is nearly impossible to not offend.The single offender then sees a chance to retalliatle whereas in a public face to face setting they typically would not. Mood is also another problem where one person having a bad day can cause drama for all.

Thanks to Twilight who pointed out the Turnage reference discussing flaming - I'll be delving into that and will hopefully write some more on it in the future.

To Anonymous who wonders if this article was me pitching to remove the "open door policy" on comments - no it wasn't. :) I just got interested.

To some recent users who've posted comments that verge on abusive - please stick to the House Rules. I realise there's a sort of performance art in posting flames on an article discussing flames, and it's kind of ironic, but seriously. :)

Removing the ability to leave anonymous comments would probably reduce the intentional and excessive abuse, trolling and flaming as most people can't be bothered to re-register if they are banned for breaking the rules.

A note on trolling though, a successful troll is not quickly identified as such.

The example linked to in the article of the suicide attempt by the Seattle "woman" is a poor one because she was causing literally hundreds of thousands of people to be delayed that morning. It's obvious why the people were rooting for "her" to get it over with.

Although most of the arguments are valid. I feel that bringing up de-individuation isnt entirely appropriate. This phenomena occurs when you are with large crowds, or can occur when you are given a specific role to follow. Milgrim's famous shock experiment shows a similar phenomena to de-invdiduation that closely resembles diffusion of responsibility becuase we follow blindly when there are either A) large crowds or B) someone with unquestioned authority. I feel that people's patterns of speech on the internet can't really be attributed to social psychology, but falls more towards your comments about being protected from consequences for your actions. Thus, this would lead me to believe that operant conditioning is more at play here, with the internet acting as a discriminitve stimuli that signals that no punishment will occur for unwanted behavior.

What you write is true, but by no means comprehensive. The need for nonverbal cues is tremendously important. This has lead to the use of emoticons and breakout comments that instruct the reader how to interpret the rest of the text (e.g. :-) , *grin*, and j/k).

However, there are other important cues, such as social status and class that are lost via anonymous text. There has been a backlash to the use of emoticons by some people who look down upon their use and the people who use them. This is the internet equivalent of banning certain vulgar words, such as "sh*t", because they are used by the lower classes. This leads not to the accidental misunderstanding of internet communications but to intentional misunderstandings, useful to the receiver to cause trouble for the sender.

As often as language is used to bring people together, it is also used to tear people apart. However, the anonymity of the internet doesn't hide or diminish our humanity. On the contrary, it encourages us to shed our affected veneer of civility, revealing us for who and what we really are: insecure children desperately seeking a truth that puts us at the center of the universe.

No my friend this isn't new or science - it's an aside. The real world of science marches on, the internet diversifies and new forms of communication are created and disposed off -letters give way to emails and no we they aren't the same nor should they; we're starting to grow up as a people and communicate in much more complex ways. I like what anon said about how in real life you might get in a fight, your mom got scared and said you're moving in with your aunt and uncle in bellair.

I'm reading through the comments, thinking how bizarre it all is. There is no doubt that people like to criticize in the online realm (when face-to-face they do the same thing, but they internalize it!). The fact that they are leaving comments at all, however, is interesting and I think speaks to good writing. But being a writer and having the first few comments left slamming the crap out of you...these are not easy comments to read. Moreover, many comment slams are completely baseless. As a writer who has done his homework, do you want others to read the baseless comments that may influence how a user considers your work?

I moderate the comments on my site. It's sad -- I would really like to not do this. Much audience interactivity is lost because of it. But darn it, it is my site! I've worked very hard on it. And in my instance 95% of the crap is flat out lies. They never have solid facts to back up their condemnations. In fact, the only people who do leave comments at my site are 100% opposed to my position. Did I really create the site with a commenting system to have this? So, people that do agree with me don't leave comments. People that disagree ALWAYS leave comments...!

The BBC actually use this as an excuse to keep things locked down on their Have Your Say system.

It's just an excuse though. They don't really like people criticising their journalism.

I think all articles published should have a facility for the public to comment. Sure, people can be rude, but that is no excuse to avoid discussion. Communities can police themselves and people can easily click on a "Report this Message" button.

My version goes like this: Flamers and trollers confuse the word 'internet' with 'safety net'. Anonymous/pseudonym posting gives people the freedom to say things in a social setting, that would get their teeth pushed down their throat when face-to-face.

Which is why I don't agree with the 'pub setting' portion of the analogy. Drunk folks aren't shy about letting you know when they think you're out of line, and will often demonstrate that fact physically. (Note: Not that one is actually out of line - drunk folks, like trolls, aren't that bright either.)

It's about politics and religion. Science and technology are questioning certain areas of life which are traditionally dealt by blind tradition. More interconnected human race can not escape the inevitable mergin of values and cultures and the questioning of every aspect of their beliefs and traditions. Is it not this the very cause for the existence of Al-Qaida and such movements?

I've come to dislike the 'blogosphere' for the reasons you mention (among others), and find that the climate has become increasingly polarized, mostly brutes on one end and lofty academics on the other, with both camps carrying an air of elitism.

The need to type (as opposed to think) on one's feet often yields text of little importance in the long run.

Another horrifying development is the blog reader's belief that someone's comment(s) represent their entire thought(s) on any given subject, a weird dynamic that's probably responsible for a great deal of sniping and nasty attitudes.

I believe the core of the problem is everything being free of charge. If a person had to pay to start a blog (like we who have websites have to pay our hosts) or, better yet, pay to comment, an advance in quality would be likely. As it stands, it's anarchy and it's stirring a lot of bad blood for no good reason.

Just like any other form of discussion, there is going to be a range of responses to any posting. If people want to be rude, they're going to be rude, in-person and online.

It seems NS house rules (aka editorial guidelines for those with any formal training) are a little "pussified" as one poster already pointed out. That doesn't mean a moderator isn't suspect of their own interpretation of those rules.

I believe more offensive than posting hater comments is people's inability to read objectively. As with Fox News or an obviously skewed article/report/blog, why can't a person understand where their filters and bias comes from?

I should elaborate on that point to explain why I feel it is similar to genovese syndrome...

I was thinking of the process of de-individualization leading to anti-social behavior. Odd.

In the context when someone needs help, people tend to do nothing. When someone is constructively working to build something, we throw stones.

I suppose it is easier to tear things down than build them up.

Also of note, many right wing think tanks and lobby groups are paying staff to flame progressive blogs. Here's a local example from my neighborhood:http://giantpoliticalmouse.blogspot.com/2007/05/taxpayers-federation-employee-makes.html

One aspect of anonymity that has not been touched on is that there is no easy way to see that a flood of anonymous posts came from a dozen different people or just one person with too much time on their hands.

Likewise this stops the blogs having a killfile because each anonymous poster is a new person. Just post a hash of their ip address as their id and then add a "hide all posts by this user" button and away we go.

Personally I like anonymous, I really do not want to have to create an id for each and every blog I comment on.

" Similarly, a forthcoming study by Kristin Byron found that people tend to interpret emails more negatively than other forms of communication"

Definately the case. There is hardly, in a lot of circumstances, an accurate tone of voice conveyed via text. For me, being on the phone limits visual contact and sensing the person's emotions. I can only hear the tone of their voice. Going online limits even that.

It's definately a topic that interests me. I've learnt to attempt the benefit of the doubt, but it's still difficult. Abusive people are common. It goes to show how aggressive people expect others to be online, that it's the norm to be that way yourself.

Ill also note that almost anything said online is at least partly ambiguous and it's extremely difficult even to conciously make every effort to abolish that. Believe me, I've tried with several alternate explanations and other methods, especially as I despise confrontation and would prefer decent conversation.

Somewhat OT but related are comments by trolls that aren't flames but can be just as disruptive. Some trolls are more trollier than others, of course. Often, invective or other noted characteristics are not present as the markers which would allow one to assign trollhood to a comment.

For example, take the well-known case of the "concern troll," one who frames a critical or disruptive comment in expressions of "concern" for some supposed disastrous outcome that would result from embracing the thing or idea to which the troll is opposed. Normally, these don't contain invective, rather just a false premise or three plus a couple of straw men.

The employment of disparaging comments framed as satire or humor, or the use of sophistry in advocacy or rebuttal, provide further examples of trolls not necessarily incorporating invective, but which can be more effectively disruptive than an invective-laced flame.

The internet has shown me a different way of being rude and ignorant. I stop this by asking the person if they would talk to me like that if I was standing there, it works. Maybe what we need in this new age of technology is a Ms. Manners class on how to act while on-line

It's a function of the perceived lack of consequences for rudeness, and that perception is aided by the sense of anonymity.

Case in point: the most polite crowds you'll ever see are at a Gun Show. I have never in my life been in such a crowded place where everyone watches where they walk, says "excuse me" if they bump into you, and actually mind their kids.

reality sucks, having tried to respond to someone else's post with a list of sugegstions to get the too long to read comment and then the usual verbals about loving D & D and goth ladies

I can sympathise entirely with people who have to moderate, but the biggest cause is seemingly ignorant people typing into forums, comments etc. with no thought whatsoever and having no better argument then I am right cause I said so

There is no doubt in my mind that a system which allows for complete anonymity encourages behavior which would not be tolerated in most "real world" communities. However I have recently begun to think that this phenomenon could be merely the bleeding edge of a wider social trend.

Over the past 150 years or so we have increasingly become independent of community in relation to our survival. While now we still remain dependent on others we need only interact with others at our whim. When community was needed to live social skills had to be developed. People had to be respected even if you disagreed with them. Your life could depend on it.

Now there seems to be a sort of tribalism that has developed. Different people adhering to specific ideologies (or lack thereof) band together and have little to no respect for those with differing opinions. "Why should we have respect? We don't need them"/speculation

I think part of the frequency of misinterpreted messages arises from lack of practice on the part of senders. Initially one doesn't realize that sarcasm, ribbing, mocking and similar speech games do not work when there is no "tone of voice" helping to convey the intent of a comment intended to be funny.

The House Rules said you may 'edit' comments. Edit? Really? I agree that anonymity gives way to vulgerness, but you should let people have their say. Comments are the echo-chamber for you're articles; you're going to hear exactly how you sound in the minds of everyone else. What about a thumbs up/down system like most websites? That way the negative comments will become invisible automatically... just an idea. Free speech!

If i or anyone online says something about " im going to kill your mom " over the internet... noone is going to take that serious because u dont know who i am. i dont know who u are. Anonymous communication makes it so i dont care if i hurt someones feelings.

Did most everyone forget that a great deal of the internet goons that are out there tend to have been the geeks and throwbacks in high school that had their own lunch table set aside for Magic tournaments? Don't get me wrong, I agree with this article, but sometimes the simplest, most obvious answer is the correct one.

An overwhelming percentage of the goons I've met in person, be they male or female, tends to have moderate to severe social problems, extreme self-worth/self-image issues. The ones I've become friends with eventually open up to say that they're lonely, confused, directionless people that could really use a shoulder once in a while. There are, of course, always exceptions to the rule (i'm sure about ten people are reading this now hoping they're not kidding themselves when they put themselves in the 'exception' category), but those exceptions are especially glaring.

I'm guilty of trolling/flaming in several instances, but those are in social arenas like fandoms and other random subcultures. In the case of things like scientific or political debate, I would HOPE that the schoolyard jeerings of one geek screaming 'FAG!' at another would stop, but it doesn't.

Honestly, this article can be looked at through typical pack behaviour inherent in humans. The louder you are, the more you thrash around, the more you make incoherent ape-noises at an opponent, the more attention (and sometimes admiration) you get. To people who grew up being outcasts that were shoved in lockers and trashcans on a regular basis, that kind of admiration, however false, is like being on a 24/7 heroin drip that never runs dry.

I came here thinking it was an article on professional Trollers/flames. But it was still interesting.

The internet has long since been a problem to the global elite. Due to it's ability to facilitate freedom of speech hence mass appeal to rational thinking.

Any influential group can just study the psycology behind the trolling and flaming and train professionals to turn the signal into noise on topics they need to play down. Or turn noise to signal on topics that are in it's interest.

Since the internet creates a natrural abundance of trollers/flamers, it would be pretty damn easy to hide. PR from the shadows.Mot132@hotmail.com

There is an additional phenomenon going on here which you may not know about. I have observed this in online games and chat rooms visited by young people, mostly American but I'm sure British also.

The phenomenon is this:I have noticed on multiple occasions that certain young people in these situations act in a most obnoxious, offensive, churlish manner. This is done far out of proportion to what is going on, and with total disregard to others' feelings. And the common denominator? Since I study online communications, I engage these persons in conversation and ask them about their behavior. In many cases, these young people, both males and females, turn out to be fundamentalist Christians -- born-agains, evangelicals, whatever term you choose. And they say two things. Firstly, they see no harm in what they do, because anything that happens online "isn't real". Secondly, when I press them about their language and crudeness, they tell me it's ok because they "are saved", i.e., they're forgiven, washed in the blood, etc.

I had assumed these obnoxious youths would be goth, atheist, disillusioned, outcasts, etc. Shows my prejudices. Although there are some goth types that do this sort of thing, overwhelmingly they are mundane Christian types who have no conscience about their behavior... because it's online, it isn't real and so it doesn't count.

Perhaps this is just another facet of your explanation. Or perhaps the Internet has become a release valve for young people like this who live in very uptight, controlled, and repressed environments.

Also many times these kids live in rural America. Perhaps an element of dislike of "outsiders" is also at play, allowing outrageous behavior: intolerance, disdain, casual hatred, torture, lynching. A reflection of reality? These reactions to "other" are present and often tolerated or encouraged in their parent culture.

This all reminds me of studies that online game companies have done of the Player-killers who wreak havoc on the fun of others in their games. (A player-killer, or PK, is a human player in the game who ambushes weaker players, kills them, then takes all their treasure -- a very rude thing to do, especially to obviously weak newbies). Overwhelmingly these anonymous online sociopaths turn out, in real life, to be lawyers.